It has nothing to do with the hardware, which is what a "PC" was all about. Linux runs on PC's, and nobody in his right mind says "Ahh, you have a PC, I have a Linux-whatever". OS2 runned on PC's. OSX actually *runs* on PC's, both Mac and not Mac.
And yes, OSX is the most important part of the bundle, at least in terms of setting it apart. Solely because it is only shipped with Macs, by decision and not because of not running anywhere else.
Old habbits die hard. The Mac community *loved* being on PowerPC because it was a direct sign of distinction ("the mass-market beige boxes", "PowerPC is *much* cleaner as an architecture", etc). I can understand that, I bought an Alpha to run Linux and OSF and I got that nice feeling on having a "real Unix". But things have changed, the Macs are PC's just has SGI's intel offerings were PC's and not MIPS. Indigo does not a non-PC make. Nor does OSX.
Ehe, no sweat. I was expecting that, but I don't really care about moderation. When all else fails just modding down seems to maintain the Mac community "suspension of belief".
You see that is just it I did like GPLv2 enough that I did contribute code to a GNU project.
That's great. You could even do it without really liking it, if it crosses the "good enough" threshould. Many people that live by the GPL contribute to BSD licenced programs, it's not ideal but good enough.
What bugs me is how this is targeted towards a company that did follow the letter of the GPLv2, is struggling, and has been in my opinion good for Linux. To me this says hey you can follow the rules to the letter but if RMS decides that he doesn't like you he will target you. I find this super counter productive.
Well, then you have a good reason to dislike the GPLv3, as I said above. I disagree, but it's a good reason nonetheless. I personally feel that the spirit of the licence is what's important and that it must be updated to reflect changes in society, and in that perspective tivoization and and patent shielding are subterfuges. Since they are able to exist by following the letter of the licence then the licence has to be updated.
Hating NVidia for supporting Linux but not the way you want them to. I feel it is more productive to state that you will buy ATI cards if they open source their drivers. Which frankly I will do. I would buy Intel but I have a nice AMD motherboard in my current system and Intel doesn't make stand alone cards. Frankly I am happy that NVidia does provide driver for Linux at all. I would rather have FOSS drivers but half a loaf is better than none. Why can't people be more positive and yes even grateful.
Indeed... note that I'm not doubting your motivations or even your entushiasm and contributions, we're just debating here. The closed drivers thing is a though problem with many possible approaches, all of which have pros and cons.
Now fighting software patents that is what I would really like to see the FSF doing and not targeting Tivo. BTW I don't work for Tivo or own one.
If nothing else this is my shout that the FSF isn't doing it's job and is being harmful to FOSS in general as well as the users of FOSS.
This is quite interesting... note that the FSF has done this extensively. Actually IIRC the previous revision of the GPL was made because of "patent shielding", which was another situation were following the letter of the licence could be done without following the spirit of the licence:
Back then, when RMS talked about patents, many people dismissed it as "political posing", "fanaticism", "I like Linux but this is to much politics, RMS is an extremist", well, you get the idea. Some years latter and here we are, knee-deep in patent threats. To reinforce that the GPLv3 has extra provisions against this forms of sidestepping the licence:
Most of what you say has been said about the GPL since the 90's, mainly comming from the BSD crowd. Not judging it, but the accusations of fanaticism, zeal, religion, etc are not new to the GPLv3.
Your take on the Tivo issue is however to the point, if you disagree with that particular point strongly then GPLv3 is not for you indeed. To be honest it doesn't really seem that GPLv2 is for you either, taking in consideration that 90% of your objections cover the GPL and the FSF in broad terms.
It's your code, of course. Chose whatever you want. I'm happy enough it's a free software licence, BSD/MIT is fine by me, and I'm also happy you feel inclined to take over the project. Honestly, that's more important to tme than the GPL vs. BSD war. I could give some thoughts on why I prefer the GPL (2 or 3) but honestly, it's raining on water... the arguments from both sides are well known. What bugs me a bit in the specific discussion of the GPLv3 isn't the fact that some developers don't want to use it... it's just that they don't seem like they would be using the GPLv2 either:)
See, your points - which are valid - apply in general to the GPL, not particulary to the GPLv3... This is part of the "problem" in this discussion: we all know that the GPL isn't liked by everyone and that a plethora of reasons are given to not use it (your points are a good example of the ones made by the BSD/MIT camp). But this doesn't apply to the GPLv3, nothing really meaningful changed in GPVv3: those who were against copyleft will still dislike it, those who support it will use it. So, apparently the GPLv3 will allienate developers that would't even use the GPLv2 in the first place.
Linus has "this kind of speech" against almost anything, so in reality, not really. But even then Linux has complained both generally and specifically, and in the latter case his comments - as others - were taken in consideration and the draft changed. He ackonwledge that much when he reluntantly said that the new draft was something that he didn't object to strongly.
Honestely curious, what in particular about the GPLv3 makes you feel that way? You mentioned that you considered moving it to GPLv2, so it isn't out of being against copyleft in general.
Your post focus two points I consider important quite well.
"Business doesn't like the GPL": true when they are on the receiving end, but false when they are on the giving end. It makes all the sense for a company to realease its internal work as GPL and no, say, BSD, since they can always leverage any improvements made by others and avoid having other companies using their base code to get an edge.
"Not everything has to be GPL": quite true. Your example is dead-on: the FSF itself have recommended the use of BSDish licences when desimination is wanted. They said so, for example, in the OGG/Theora situations.
I think it's great you have chosen to release your work with a BSD/MIT licence (really). But from reading your post it's apparent that you don't really seem to view the current GPL as suitable, so the GPLv3 will not change that. Every complain you have about the GPLv3 can be applied to the GPLv2.
Exactly. It's the permanent whinning of those that are only favourable of "open source" when it means that they can reduce the headcount by using it. I am still waiting to hear someone who actually used the GPLv2 come up with this kind of speech: until now the only voices against the GPLv3 are from quarters that are against copyleft and are scared that the loopholes will be closed. They disliked the door in the first place and now their complaining about the fixing of the holes with vague talks about "the developers want this and that". It all translates into
We would really like to get all the code with no strings attached so we can add our own strings to it. We dislike the GPL as is and really dislike the new one since it focus on fixing some clever ways we had of bypassing the spirit of the licence. Ideally we would like to get all the code - doesn't matter that we didn't wrote it or that we don't share it ourselves. GPLv3, BAD!
Quite. Whishful thinking on the part of those who are scared of the GPLv3. If it will "allienate" developers (who exactly nobody knows since ratio of bitching about the GPL is always inversely proportional to the actual coding in free software projets) then it will be great, nobody will use it, there are other licences out there and everything will be perfect for the anti-copyleft camp.
The "problem" with the GPLv3 isn't that it will allienate developers, it's exactly the opposite: most people against the underlying principle of the GPL - and especially those who have been relying on loopholes created by the changes in technology and society - are scared that it will actually be adopted - which I think it will, replacing the GPLv2 in new projects as the "de facto" copyleft licence. Don't like it, don't use it, but especially don't bitch about others using it, fell free *not* to use the code in the first place.
True... but in Europe the Sinclair machines (ZX Spectrum in particular) were more successful than Commodore until the Amiga. The years might not be quite right, but the C64 and the AX were rivals, and everywhere I went in Europe the Spectrum had won. Apple, not even a sight.
For that to happen we, as Europeans, would actually have to regrow the balls that were cut off after WW2. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the fact of the matter is that North Americans are *right* in one thing: we should put out, or shut up. If we want to take a "stronger stand" then this seemingly eternal masochism in what regards the War has to stop, and though decisions made. NATO is nonsensical and it's only a remnant of European subservience to the US. "Economic power" without the actual guts is of little importance: the EU will be the fatest neutered pig in the world, oh how bloody nice.
Worst of it all is that not only the West has the tongue firmly implanted in the US's ass, but now the East apparently has chosen to do the same.
We should stop blaming others, especially the USA. It's utter hipocrisy to whine and whine while remaining under the "protection" and refusing to actually do anything. I would be sick and tired of Europeans if I was an American. When it's convenient we are all great "Atlantic allies"; when it isn't we call Bush a retarded idiot - which he is of course, but that's behyond the point - and make calls for "dialogue". Gutless, spinless ghosts, a mere shadow of the past.
As for Russia, well, they are part of Europe, always were, always will be. This artificial division between West and East has hurt us enough and has served well the interests of others. While we were divided "...from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic..." we can still believe in a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
A bin that looks like an apple and says "Bite me!". Unless a lawyer pops out and bites in return while serving a pink slip, I'm afraid I don't view how this can look serious to anyone else.
Hey, I'm not defending the Christians in here as well... I also consider that most, if not all, civilizations have a violent kernel to them. I'm not saying that Muslims are special in this regard, what I'm saying is the opposite: just as it would be miopic to view the Crusades and the Discoveries (just two examples) as solely great achievements in which the Muslims or others are to blam I think it's stretching it to far to embark in modern-day revisionism (not saying that you did it) that seems to considers anything that borders Europe as pacific and tolerante at heart, being driven to their excesses by the bad deeds of Europeans of yore, and as such worthy of eternal apologies and excuses. War is bad, people day, people get massacred. It's been that way since the Neolithic (at least). I can see the double standard in many ways: taking Iberia for an example, people get all hiffy with the remaining moors being put in "Mourarias", special sections of the cities, and even more when the posterior expulsion and/or popular massacres (always looking for a scapegoat) occured. On the other hand they paint the Islamic occupancy as a great, tolerant world in which the Christians "only" had to wear special clothes and badges, were taxed, were liable to be killed for trivial "offenses" and were massacred as well at the minor outburst.
I'm not saying they were "worse". But I'm not buying that they were that great either, as seems to be the PC thing to say.
We were talking about Muslims, not Jews. Depending on the time, the Jews in Europe have been tolerated, persecuted, emprisoned, expelled or killed. There is nothing new in this, and the Crusades are an example. I never said that religious intolerance wasn't present, quite the contrary.
As for the Arab hatred, cry me a river. Arabs and Muslims were *intensely* imperialistic and managed to crush several civilizations in their path. They weren't "tolerant" with others, actually they had this nice concept of "dhimmi" in which conquered inhabitants that didn't convert to Islam had to pay taxes, had different judicial rules annd were constantly humiliated, and could see their sons taken away from them as slaves. They swept over Iberia at one time, reached Vienna at another, and somehow I'm supposed to be sympathetic them and not with the oned that drove them away? I'm always at awe as how can the Arab and/or Muslim world play the victim card.
You do well in being a critical reader. Note however that I said that the Crusades "were initiated" by Muslim conquests, and your comment supports that: Jerusalem had been taken by the Muslims in the VII century. The Crusade was however initiated not by an appeal to take back Jerusalem per se but by an appeal of the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope seeking help in stopping the advances of the Muslim armies into Byzantine territory, namely Asia Minor. From there on the Crusades resembled in some parts an almost grassroots movement filled with religious zeal, akin to the Iberian Reconquista. It was religious in the sense that religions was used as a diferentiator, but like before and after it wasn't the only thing that set them apart, it was a mix of culture, religion, politics and ethnicity.
The Crusades were a religious wars because religion and the Holy Land stroke a deep chord in most Europeans at the time, fueled by the Church. Same thing withing the Muslim world at the time btw, the spread of Islam was of foremost important. My initial - and pretty much only - point is that the Crusades didn't happened because someone decided it was a good time to go and slaughter some peaceful Muslims in their countries, it was sparkled by the advance and conquest of Muslim rulers into the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire, from Jerusalem and surroundings in the VII century to most of Asia Minor in the XI century. Looking at it like it was some kind of unprovoked aggression against some peaceful denizens living in their secular lands is miopic IMO. It would be akin - I'm exagerating a bit here - to suggest that the Central and Eastern European armies that fought against the Ottomans that had reached Vienna were warmongering thugs, attacking the peaceful Ottoman Empire that just wanted to participate in a great multicultural exchange with the natives.
Oh, yes, of course. The backlash is there, and the intolerance was high. No doubt about that, bloody hell, even the Byzantine Empire suffered pillaes at the hands of the crusaders. I was just talking about the initial motivation, not the subsequent actions.
The First Crusade was initiated by Muslim conquests on the Holy Land and territorial advances on the Byzantine Empire. While centuries latter there was indeed violence-led expansion of religion (e.g. the Portuguese in Asia, the Spaniards in America, etc) the Crusades aren't a clear-cut situation of "Christian aggresion" on traditionaly Muslim territories. Much the other way around, Islam expanded, many times violently, into traditionaly Christian areas (some Churches from that time still exist). As such there is indeed a big difference in teaching the crusades, both the Eastern "Holy Land" one and the Western "Iberian Reconquest".
As for hands being clean, well, I don't think nobody is claiming that.
There is a difference. A big difference. I'm from Portugal, and what we learn of Napoleon is basically a mix of early Revolutionary Enlightenment, military genius but ultimately an invader that needed to be defeated and we cherish each victory. Now, this is what we learn *here*, but I wouldn't dream of asking the French to start teaching this in *their* schools, even to Portuguese immigrants there. It's *their* f***** country, and they should teach what they see as fit (that is to say, being somewhat proud of Napoleon), if foriegners are offender, well, I can only supposed the border is open to those that dislike it. Of course, ideally History should be more factual and avoid emotional interpretations, but as you said each country has a general tendency to judge and see the events through their reflection in them, and there is nothing wrong with that.
This is beginning to go far, too far. By 1) Terrorist attacks and 2) Immigration and 3) Convertion Islam is getting a foothold in Europe and beginning to dictate what we should or shouldn't teach. This is only one of several such "incidents" that happen every day.
I know you meant it more in jest than ahything, but there is very little "demasculinized" in people that are bald, especially those that sahve their heads. If anything crop-2 and below appear in general more agressive - agressiveness being one of the main traits in masculinity, of course - than man with hair by their shoulders.
On the other hand you do have a point: depending on the person losing hair can have an effect on self-esteem, and that directly affects masculinity. It's not the aesthetical part of it that is more troublesome, but the reaction to it.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with the hardware, which is what a "PC" was all about. Linux runs on PC's, and nobody in his right mind says "Ahh, you have a PC, I have a Linux-whatever". OS2 runned on PC's. OSX actually *runs* on PC's, both Mac and not Mac.
And yes, OSX is the most important part of the bundle, at least in terms of setting it apart. Solely because it is only shipped with Macs, by decision and not because of not running anywhere else.
Old habbits die hard. The Mac community *loved* being on PowerPC because it was a direct sign of distinction ("the mass-market beige boxes", "PowerPC is *much* cleaner as an architecture", etc). I can understand that, I bought an Alpha to run Linux and OSF and I got that nice feeling on having a "real Unix". But things have changed, the Macs are PC's just has SGI's intel offerings were PC's and not MIPS. Indigo does not a non-PC make. Nor does OSX.
Ehe, no sweat. I was expecting that, but I don't really care about moderation. When all else fails just modding down seems to maintain the Mac community "suspension of belief".
Ehehe. The ThinkPad came with a builtin keyboard ligth. They were still peecees :)
I find this vain attempt to distinguish the modern "Macs" from the loathed "Peecees" as amusing.
Macs are PC's, in every sense of the word. Get over it. The difference is EFI, a logo and price markup. How very distinctive.
That's great. You could even do it without really liking it, if it crosses the "good enough" threshould. Many people that live by the GPL contribute to BSD licenced programs, it's not ideal but good enough.
What bugs me is how this is targeted towards a company that did follow the letter of the GPLv2, is struggling, and has been in my opinion good for Linux. To me this says hey you can follow the rules to the letter but if RMS decides that he doesn't like you he will target you. I find this super counter productive.
Well, then you have a good reason to dislike the GPLv3, as I said above. I disagree, but it's a good reason nonetheless. I personally feel that the spirit of the licence is what's important and that it must be updated to reflect changes in society, and in that perspective tivoization and and patent shielding are subterfuges. Since they are able to exist by following the letter of the licence then the licence has to be updated.
Hating NVidia for supporting Linux but not the way you want them to. I feel it is more productive to state that you will buy ATI cards if they open source their drivers. Which frankly I will do. I would buy Intel but I have a nice AMD motherboard in my current system and Intel doesn't make stand alone cards. Frankly I am happy that NVidia does provide driver for Linux at all. I would rather have FOSS drivers but half a loaf is better than none. Why can't people be more positive and yes even grateful.
Indeed... note that I'm not doubting your motivations or even your entushiasm and contributions, we're just debating here. The closed drivers thing is a though problem with many possible approaches, all of which have pros and cons.
Now fighting software patents that is what I would really like to see the FSF doing and not targeting Tivo. BTW I don't work for Tivo or own one. If nothing else this is my shout that the FSF isn't doing it's job and is being harmful to FOSS in general as well as the users of FOSS.
This is quite interesting... note that the FSF has done this extensively. Actually IIRC the previous revision of the GPL was made because of "patent shielding", which was another situation were following the letter of the licence could be done without following the spirit of the licence:
Around 1990, I found out about the danger of software patents. So in GPL version 2, we developed the section that we called "liberty or death for the program", although informally, because in GPL version 2 the sections don't have titles. This said that if you agree to any sort of patent licence that would limit the rights that your users would get, then you couldn't distribute the program at all.
Back then, when RMS talked about patents, many people dismissed it as "political posing", "fanaticism", "I like Linux but this is to much politics, RMS is an extremist", well, you get the idea. Some years latter and here we are, knee-deep in patent threats. To reinforce that the GPLv3 has extra provisions against this forms of sidestepping the licence:
A few years ago, I realised that there were other ways software patents might be used to make software non-free, so we're designing GPL version 3 to block them too. For instance, one issue is, what if the developer of the software has a patent on it, or rather, has a patent on some particular computational technique used in the program. (...) However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a pate
Thanks for answering.
:)
Most of what you say has been said about the GPL since the 90's, mainly comming from the BSD crowd. Not judging it, but the accusations of fanaticism, zeal, religion, etc are not new to the GPLv3.
Your take on the Tivo issue is however to the point, if you disagree with that particular point strongly then GPLv3 is not for you indeed. To be honest it doesn't really seem that GPLv2 is for you either, taking in consideration that 90% of your objections cover the GPL and the FSF in broad terms.
It's your code, of course. Chose whatever you want. I'm happy enough it's a free software licence, BSD/MIT is fine by me, and I'm also happy you feel inclined to take over the project. Honestly, that's more important to tme than the GPL vs. BSD war. I could give some thoughts on why I prefer the GPL (2 or 3) but honestly, it's raining on water... the arguments from both sides are well known. What bugs me a bit in the specific discussion of the GPLv3 isn't the fact that some developers don't want to use it... it's just that they don't seem like they would be using the GPLv2 either
See, your points - which are valid - apply in general to the GPL, not particulary to the GPLv3... This is part of the "problem" in this discussion: we all know that the GPL isn't liked by everyone and that a plethora of reasons are given to not use it (your points are a good example of the ones made by the BSD/MIT camp). But this doesn't apply to the GPLv3, nothing really meaningful changed in GPVv3: those who were against copyleft will still dislike it, those who support it will use it. So, apparently the GPLv3 will allienate developers that would't even use the GPLv2 in the first place.
Linus has "this kind of speech" against almost anything, so in reality, not really. But even then Linux has complained both generally and specifically, and in the latter case his comments - as others - were taken in consideration and the draft changed. He ackonwledge that much when he reluntantly said that the new draft was something that he didn't object to strongly.
Honestely curious, what in particular about the GPLv3 makes you feel that way? You mentioned that you considered moving it to GPLv2, so it isn't out of being against copyleft in general.
Your post focus two points I consider important quite well.
"Business doesn't like the GPL": true when they are on the receiving end, but false when they are on the giving end. It makes all the sense for a company to realease its internal work as GPL and no, say, BSD, since they can always leverage any improvements made by others and avoid having other companies using their base code to get an edge.
"Not everything has to be GPL": quite true. Your example is dead-on: the FSF itself have recommended the use of BSDish licences when desimination is wanted. They said so, for example, in the OGG/Theora situations.
I think it's great you have chosen to release your work with a BSD/MIT licence (really). But from reading your post it's apparent that you don't really seem to view the current GPL as suitable, so the GPLv3 will not change that. Every complain you have about the GPLv3 can be applied to the GPLv2.
Exactly. It's the permanent whinning of those that are only favourable of "open source" when it means that they can reduce the headcount by using it. I am still waiting to hear someone who actually used the GPLv2 come up with this kind of speech: until now the only voices against the GPLv3 are from quarters that are against copyleft and are scared that the loopholes will be closed. They disliked the door in the first place and now their complaining about the fixing of the holes with vague talks about "the developers want this and that". It all translates into
We would really like to get all the code with no strings attached so we can add our own strings to it. We dislike the GPL as is and really dislike the new one since it focus on fixing some clever ways we had of bypassing the spirit of the licence. Ideally we would like to get all the code - doesn't matter that we didn't wrote it or that we don't share it ourselves. GPLv3, BAD!
Quite. Whishful thinking on the part of those who are scared of the GPLv3. If it will "allienate" developers (who exactly nobody knows since ratio of bitching about the GPL is always inversely proportional to the actual coding in free software projets) then it will be great, nobody will use it, there are other licences out there and everything will be perfect for the anti-copyleft camp.
The "problem" with the GPLv3 isn't that it will allienate developers, it's exactly the opposite: most people against the underlying principle of the GPL - and especially those who have been relying on loopholes created by the changes in technology and society - are scared that it will actually be adopted - which I think it will, replacing the GPLv2 in new projects as the "de facto" copyleft licence. Don't like it, don't use it, but especially don't bitch about others using it, fell free *not* to use the code in the first place.
I'll say a mea culpa here, can't watch vids.
Yeah, I use Linux as well.
True... but in Europe the Sinclair machines (ZX Spectrum in particular) were more successful than Commodore until the Amiga. The years might not be quite right, but the C64 and the AX were rivals, and everywhere I went in Europe the Spectrum had won. Apple, not even a sight.
For that to happen we, as Europeans, would actually have to regrow the balls that were cut off after WW2. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the fact of the matter is that North Americans are *right* in one thing: we should put out, or shut up. If we want to take a "stronger stand" then this seemingly eternal masochism in what regards the War has to stop, and though decisions made. NATO is nonsensical and it's only a remnant of European subservience to the US. "Economic power" without the actual guts is of little importance: the EU will be the fatest neutered pig in the world, oh how bloody nice.
Worst of it all is that not only the West has the tongue firmly implanted in the US's ass, but now the East apparently has chosen to do the same.
We should stop blaming others, especially the USA. It's utter hipocrisy to whine and whine while remaining under the "protection" and refusing to actually do anything. I would be sick and tired of Europeans if I was an American. When it's convenient we are all great "Atlantic allies"; when it isn't we call Bush a retarded idiot - which he is of course, but that's behyond the point - and make calls for "dialogue". Gutless, spinless ghosts, a mere shadow of the past.
As for Russia, well, they are part of Europe, always were, always will be. This artificial division between West and East has hurt us enough and has served well the interests of others. While we were divided "...from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic..." we can still believe in a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
A bin that looks like an apple and says "Bite me!". Unless a lawyer pops out and bites in return while serving a pink slip, I'm afraid I don't view how this can look serious to anyone else.
Hey, I'm not defending the Christians in here as well... I also consider that most, if not all, civilizations have a violent kernel to them. I'm not saying that Muslims are special in this regard, what I'm saying is the opposite: just as it would be miopic to view the Crusades and the Discoveries (just two examples) as solely great achievements in which the Muslims or others are to blam I think it's stretching it to far to embark in modern-day revisionism (not saying that you did it) that seems to considers anything that borders Europe as pacific and tolerante at heart, being driven to their excesses by the bad deeds of Europeans of yore, and as such worthy of eternal apologies and excuses. War is bad, people day, people get massacred. It's been that way since the Neolithic (at least). I can see the double standard in many ways: taking Iberia for an example, people get all hiffy with the remaining moors being put in "Mourarias", special sections of the cities, and even more when the posterior expulsion and/or popular massacres (always looking for a scapegoat) occured. On the other hand they paint the Islamic occupancy as a great, tolerant world in which the Christians "only" had to wear special clothes and badges, were taxed, were liable to be killed for trivial "offenses" and were massacred as well at the minor outburst.
I'm not saying they were "worse". But I'm not buying that they were that great either, as seems to be the PC thing to say.
We were talking about Muslims, not Jews. Depending on the time, the Jews in Europe have been tolerated, persecuted, emprisoned, expelled or killed. There is nothing new in this, and the Crusades are an example. I never said that religious intolerance wasn't present, quite the contrary.
As for the Arab hatred, cry me a river. Arabs and Muslims were *intensely* imperialistic and managed to crush several civilizations in their path. They weren't "tolerant" with others, actually they had this nice concept of "dhimmi" in which conquered inhabitants that didn't convert to Islam had to pay taxes, had different judicial rules annd were constantly humiliated, and could see their sons taken away from them as slaves. They swept over Iberia at one time, reached Vienna at another, and somehow I'm supposed to be sympathetic them and not with the oned that drove them away? I'm always at awe as how can the Arab and/or Muslim world play the victim card.
You do well in being a critical reader. Note however that I said that the Crusades "were initiated" by Muslim conquests, and your comment supports that: Jerusalem had been taken by the Muslims in the VII century. The Crusade was however initiated not by an appeal to take back Jerusalem per se but by an appeal of the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope seeking help in stopping the advances of the Muslim armies into Byzantine territory, namely Asia Minor. From there on the Crusades resembled in some parts an almost grassroots movement filled with religious zeal, akin to the Iberian Reconquista. It was religious in the sense that religions was used as a diferentiator, but like before and after it wasn't the only thing that set them apart, it was a mix of culture, religion, politics and ethnicity.
The Crusades were a religious wars because religion and the Holy Land stroke a deep chord in most Europeans at the time, fueled by the Church. Same thing withing the Muslim world at the time btw, the spread of Islam was of foremost important. My initial - and pretty much only - point is that the Crusades didn't happened because someone decided it was a good time to go and slaughter some peaceful Muslims in their countries, it was sparkled by the advance and conquest of Muslim rulers into the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire, from Jerusalem and surroundings in the VII century to most of Asia Minor in the XI century. Looking at it like it was some kind of unprovoked aggression against some peaceful denizens living in their secular lands is miopic IMO. It would be akin - I'm exagerating a bit here - to suggest that the Central and Eastern European armies that fought against the Ottomans that had reached Vienna were warmongering thugs, attacking the peaceful Ottoman Empire that just wanted to participate in a great multicultural exchange with the natives.
Oh, yes, of course. The backlash is there, and the intolerance was high. No doubt about that, bloody hell, even the Byzantine Empire suffered pillaes at the hands of the crusaders. I was just talking about the initial motivation, not the subsequent actions.
The First Crusade was initiated by Muslim conquests on the Holy Land and territorial advances on the Byzantine Empire. While centuries latter there was indeed violence-led expansion of religion (e.g. the Portuguese in Asia, the Spaniards in America, etc) the Crusades aren't a clear-cut situation of "Christian aggresion" on traditionaly Muslim territories. Much the other way around, Islam expanded, many times violently, into traditionaly Christian areas (some Churches from that time still exist). As such there is indeed a big difference in teaching the crusades, both the Eastern "Holy Land" one and the Western "Iberian Reconquest".
As for hands being clean, well, I don't think nobody is claiming that.
There is a difference. A big difference. I'm from Portugal, and what we learn of Napoleon is basically a mix of early Revolutionary Enlightenment, military genius but ultimately an invader that needed to be defeated and we cherish each victory. Now, this is what we learn *here*, but I wouldn't dream of asking the French to start teaching this in *their* schools, even to Portuguese immigrants there. It's *their* f***** country, and they should teach what they see as fit (that is to say, being somewhat proud of Napoleon), if foriegners are offender, well, I can only supposed the border is open to those that dislike it. Of course, ideally History should be more factual and avoid emotional interpretations, but as you said each country has a general tendency to judge and see the events through their reflection in them, and there is nothing wrong with that.
This is beginning to go far, too far. By 1) Terrorist attacks and 2) Immigration and 3) Convertion Islam is getting a foothold in Europe and beginning to dictate what we should or shouldn't teach. This is only one of several such "incidents" that happen every day.
Anyone can create a biased survey that self-serves their own interests.
I doubt that, the studies point the other direction
What of the poor, demasculinized baldies?
I know you meant it more in jest than ahything, but there is very little "demasculinized" in people that are bald, especially those that sahve their heads. If anything crop-2 and below appear in general more agressive - agressiveness being one of the main traits in masculinity, of course - than man with hair by their shoulders.
On the other hand you do have a point: depending on the person losing hair can have an effect on self-esteem, and that directly affects masculinity. It's not the aesthetical part of it that is more troublesome, but the reaction to it.